Eh, I don't know R1.5- The Citizens United case was decided on straight 1st Amendment issues. After all, the Citizens United decision applied to any independent entity-Fraternal Organizations, Labor Unions, and corporations. And the most important aspect of Citizens United was that it still upheld the direct contribution limit to political candidates and their campaigns. If anything, the foundation for Citizen's United was laid back in the 70's, under the Burger Court, when the SC ruled that political contributions equate to free speech. (This was back in 74 or 76, around there)

Imagine the outcome if Citizens United was not upheld? The Daily Show would have to be put on hold for months at time during any election. Micheal Moore wouldn't be able to broadcast any of his movies for about 3 months out of the year. The cornerstone was not that Citizens United treated corporations like people, it's that the people who make up a corporation don't sign away their rights simply because they incorporate, or unionize, join a organization like the American Legion, or pool their resources to make a movie.

Besides examining the religious exemption, that's the other issue that the SC addressed with the Hobby Lobby case. If the owners of Hobby Lobby ran a Bible Study Institute, they would already get an exemption. If they ran Hobby Lobby through a LLC, they would qualify for the existing exemption as well. But because they incorporated, the existing exemption doesn't apply? The Supreme Court indicated that the owners of a private company don't loose the existing protections simply because they are a corporation, much like the Berger Court ruled back in the 1970's. This case is a mash up between the RFRA and the Berger decision of the 1970's. (At the moment, the name of that case is escaping me)

Call me crazy, but all of this seems like a desperate attempt by the Right to try and slow the inevitable loss of power that is going to come with the now-unstoppable demographic shifts occurring across the US.

Thirty years ago, they would have been successful. Now, in the Information Age, I don't see it. The Left, while beholden to its own problems, have learned the lessons of how to mobilize, and continue to trounce the Right in mobilization through social media (although the gap is closing).

In relation to the comments regarding the SC's timing, one could argue that both ways. Yes, some of the rulings (Voting Rights Act) will help Republicans in the short term, but it also serves to galvanize Democrats. There's going to be complacency in the 2014 midterms (common in the sixth year of a Presidential term), but that will likely translate into renewed momentum come 2016, on both sides.

Genuine question: do you believe that it is morally wrong to oppose this demographic shift?

How can you oppose this demographic shift? You mean disagree with it? If thats the case, then no, but it depends on their reasoning behind doing so. I've heard voices from the Right say some things like "This isn't the country I grew up in" and things like that, which I find morally wrong because I know exactly what their referring to.

Call me crazy, but all of this seems like a desperate attempt by the Right to try and slow the inevitable loss of power that is going to come with the now-unstoppable demographic shifts occurring across the US.

Thirty years ago, they would have been successful. Now, in the Information Age, I don't see it. The Left, while beholden to its own problems, have learned the lessons of how to mobilize, and continue to trounce the Right in mobilization through social media (although the gap is closing).

In relation to the comments regarding the SC's timing, one could argue that both ways. Yes, some of the rulings (Voting Rights Act) will help Republicans in the short term, but it also serves to galvanize Democrats. There's going to be complacency in the 2014 midterms (common in the sixth year of a Presidential term), but that will likely translate into renewed momentum come 2016, on both sides.

Genuine question: do you believe that it is morally wrong to oppose this demographic shift?

How can you oppose this demographic shift? You mean disagree with it? If thats the case, then no, but it depends on their reasoning behind doing so. I've heard voices from the Right say some things like "This isn't the country I grew up in" and things like that, which I find morally wrong because I know exactly what their referring to.

Well, one specific way to slow it down (which is likely ultimately ineffective) would be to massively deport illegal immigrants and shut down legal immigration. I don't really see any other way. Lots of Americans do support and desire this. In the context of this discussion, I meant primarily to disagree with the shift, not actively take measures to oppose it.

What would you consider a valid reason to disagree with the demographic shift?

Valid reason... well I suppose if someone was saying that this demographic shift is primarily due to illegal immigration, then there is some validity to that statement and a sufficient reason to oppose it. But I don't think the people object are connecting those two dots and if they are then the message should be different when they are talking about opposing it. Instead of saying a national version of "There goes the neighborhood" or directly opposing immigration(which we all know in America is seen as only a Mexican issue), one could say that the demographic change is illegitimate and that is enough cause to oppose the shift.

Valid reason... well I suppose if someone was saying that this demographic shift is primarily due to illegal immigration, then there is some validity to that statement and a sufficient reason to oppose it. But I don't think the people object are connecting those two dots and if they are then the message should be different when they are talking about opposing it. Instead of saying a national version of "There goes the neighborhood" or directly opposing immigration(which we all know in America is seen as only a Mexican issue), one could say that the demographic change is illegitimate and that is enough cause to oppose the shift.

Okay, so you would be okay with someone saying, "I don't like the fact that lots of people are breaking the law and it's resulting in a much faster influx of immigrants, typically from Mexico and other Latin American countries, than would normally happen through legal immigration."

But, if someone were to say, "I like America's demographics the way it is because I genuinely prefer to live in a country with a supermajority of people of northern European descent as opposed to Latin Americans, therefore I want the country that I live in to continue to be composed predominately of this group", that would be wrong?

It is reality. What the Right is doing is attempting to control outcomes through a subtle kind of force. Citizens United best embodies this.

The thing is, the Republican base is rapidly becoming irrelevant, but they have been successful is placing strong allies in key positions of power. The eventual outcome of decisions like Citizens United will be a change to the Constitution, although it is likely to take decades for that to happen.

I think, within fifty years, the document will be amended to undue this decision, guarantee equal rights (yes, the famed ERA), and end the privacy debate once-and-for-all. Before we get there, though, there are going to be hiccups where things slide backward for a time.

Another example: DOMA preceding the wave of defeats of anti-gay-marriage laws across the country. The SC could technically put a stop to it, but the justices, political or not, are still human, and probably care to a degree about their legacy (unless its Thomas or Scalia, who care only about idealogical purity). Either way, economic realities in a global economy make Republican ideas unworkable over the long-term, especially on the anti-science front. At best, America will end up being two countries, one of which will be socially conservative but also a permanent underclass, with the majority of wealth and power going to the educated...and those won't be the ones who want creationism taught in science classes. At worst, the US will become a tourist destination for the rich and powerful Chinese oligarchs whose government isn't bogged down in arcane debates over teaching evolution or whether or not birth control should be legal.

One of the two main political parties in the US gets this, the other does not. Given their willingness to scorch the earth when they don't get their way (the Debt Ceiling, for example), the Republicans run the risk of eventually being crushed.
If another financial crisis occurs during a Republican presidency, the party will see a multi-decade span of being locked out of the White House. Yes, this is my opinion, but it also represents the writing on the wall.

The best thing for the GOP would be a huge defeat; without another Barry Goldwater moment, they will never change. And they need to.

44 the exemption is an HHS exemption -- I'm not sure if it's in the regs bc the agency felt it was demanded by RFRA or not. But seeing as that the hallmark of a corporation is the separation of the owners and the entity... yes? The people still have their rights, it's just that those same rights shouldn't be imputed to the corporation.

And what about the rights of those who disagree? The court said that the corporate governance structure sheds light on whose beliefs are the corporation's, but then so much for the cirporayion's rights being those of the people who make it up. Turns out only some of those folks get rights.

That's not even getting to the issues of how this funding of a person's independent medical choice constitutes a "substantial burden" on religious belief on the part of the government. I mean gee, if this is a substantial burden then what isn't too attenuated?

Valid reason... well I suppose if someone was saying that this demographic shift is primarily due to illegal immigration, then there is some validity to that statement and a sufficient reason to oppose it. But I don't think the people object are connecting those two dots and if they are then the message should be different when they are talking about opposing it. Instead of saying a national version of "There goes the neighborhood" or directly opposing immigration(which we all know in America is seen as only a Mexican issue), one could say that the demographic change is illegitimate and that is enough cause to oppose the shift.

Okay, so you would be okay with someone saying, "I don't like the fact that lots of people are breaking the law and it's resulting in a much faster influx of immigrants, typically from Mexico and other Latin American countries, than would normally happen through legal immigration."

But, if someone were to say, "I like America's demographics the way it is because I genuinely prefer to live in a country with a supermajority of people of northern European descent as opposed to Latin Americans, therefore I want the country that I live in to continue to be composed predominately of this group", that would be wrong?

Not wrong, just that I wouldn't be okay with it. Its the reasoning behind the objection that makes it distasteful, not the objection in itself

Valid reason... well I suppose if someone was saying that this demographic shift is primarily due to illegal immigration, then there is some validity to that statement and a sufficient reason to oppose it. But I don't think the people object are connecting those two dots and if they are then the message should be different when they are talking about opposing it. Instead of saying a national version of "There goes the neighborhood" or directly opposing immigration(which we all know in America is seen as only a Mexican issue), one could say that the demographic change is illegitimate and that is enough cause to oppose the shift.

Okay, so you would be okay with someone saying, "I don't like the fact that lots of people are breaking the law and it's resulting in a much faster influx of immigrants, typically from Mexico and other Latin American countries, than would normally happen through legal immigration."

But, if someone were to say, "I like America's demographics the way it is because I genuinely prefer to live in a country with a supermajority of people of northern European descent as opposed to Latin Americans, therefore I want the country that I live in to continue to be composed predominately of this group", that would be wrong?

Not wrong, just that I wouldn't be okay with it. Its the reasoning behind the objection that makes it distasteful, not the objection in itself

Why is it distasteful to prefer for your country to retain the demographics it has had historically? Especially when it means retaining the ensuing culture and environment that comes with its demographics?

Now we're talking about different ideas of country make ups. America isn't Germany or Somalia where the people (And I'm talking like 90% and up) can identify as German or Somali. America has never been a place (Post colonization) where its only been made up of one kind of people. This is the melting pot thing: The American culture and environment wasn't made by just Americans, so retaining culture and environment, at least in this country, is a bit fantastical and not based solely in reality.

As far as retaining the demographics it has had historically, it depends on what you mean by demographics, but both would be weak arguments. If you mean demographics by the percentages of people of a given group (which is what I think you mean) I think anyone would object to that on moral grounds in America because you would be saying "I want blacks to stay around this percentage, whites around here, asians here, etc). You're literally saying I don't want the power dynamics to change (At least in America where power has been closely tied with race/ethnicity). If you man demographics by the types of people that make up your country, then there's even less room to object: More mexicans or blacks or asians doesn't change the fact that they are still mexicans, blacks, and asians.

Disclaimer: When I say mexicans i actually mean mexicans and not all brown people south of the border.

Not necessarily. Until the current administration, half of the court's liberal wing was Republican.

In fact, many of the most famously liberal justices -- Warren, Blackmun, and Brennan come to mind -- were Republican.

The appointment and confirmation process is just more recently partisan than normal, largely due to the culture wars. It's resulted in "reliable" voting on certain issues, but don't let that fool you. Even this famously "ideological" court mixes it up a lot on the issues that aren't sexy enough for ppl to pay attention to.

The only reason that these largely social or jurisprudential things are more routine is because that's generally the basis they're nominated for.

These issues seem to have their threads reversed. The Supreme Court stuff gets moved to this thread, and now the general politics stuff is in the SC thread....

Because the court decision is blatantly political. We talk all the time about conservative, liberal, and swing SC Justices. I find it irksome that we've accepted as fact that the high bench has largely become another arm of the political parties.

Yeah, what Jello just posted. If what you are saying is accurate, then every SC decision could be "blatantly political."

Hey, in 2012, the SC upheld the ACA itself, when, clearly that law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court must have just been a tool of Obama's re-election team. (<-----note to those who don't immediately recognize sarcasm. This is intentionally sarcastic, and not what I personally believe) Don't you think if the SC wanted to be overtly partisan, it would have simply struck down the entire law when it had the chance? But that's not the standard the Supreme Court uses. What precedent exists? What standards of the Constitution apply? The Supreme Court upheld Congress's power to enact a law like the ACA by applying the standard of law, but according to your claim, it was only for partisan reasons? That makes no sense. Every SC decision has the same validity compared to each other.

In other words, something like the RFRA is just as valid as the ACA, and as of yet, both have been upheld by the Supreme Court despite the fact that people object to either of them. If something is found to have over-reach, then the SC reigns it in. If something is found to violate a existing principle, then it is struck down. It's not like the SC sits back and says "ooooh, we have a democratic President, so we have to issue rulings which conflict with the executive in order to keep things interesting." Or is it that you think SC decisions are only "blatantly political" when you personally disagree with them?

It seemed to me at the time that Roberts was very clearly trying to make a point that the SC wasn't political with that decision. I think he probably knew that the SC would lose a lot of respect if that case went 5-4 with the Republicans striking down the ACA. It was a legacy move, I think, siding with the liberals on the court on that one.

And it's interesting to note that the 5 justices that upheld the law didn't even agree on why they were upholding it. That right there seems to indicate that it isn't a matter of just "applying the standard of the law." Of course, if that's all it was, every decision would be unanimous; but even with 5-4 decisions, when the majority can't even agree on why the decision they're making is legal, it makes you wonder.

Two groups of people may well benefit from the decision over health care. Namely older individuals. As younger women and men decide that a company that doesn't support your health decisions may not be the place to work for, Older individuals without need for birth control methods have an opportunity. Make no bones, saying no to a women's right to birth control affects men and women. If a company won't pay for birth control then a man who is married and young and doesn't want kids he won't work for them. The other group may be women and men who may be unable to get pregnant because of hysterectomy or vistectomy.

The worse part for any company that limits health care may be the backlash from communities. Sure the Christian book store won't have an issue but the private company that delivers a service may not get what it wants. It may even find that the state and the town will not do business with them. If you want you may find places like Angie's list taking into account what a company provides its employees and base a rating on that as well. So if you don't have it all you look bad in these eyes of everyone else. You want to tell people what they should believe then you better be ready to deal with the consequences.

. What about simply not paying for post-fertilized methods under its health insurance, while not preventing access to it in any other way, is so overreaching?

Because as I've said before: this court decision gives business owners the legal right to compel employees to abide by the owners' religious beliefs or face economic penalty. The beliefs, or unbelief, of the employees are now irrelevant.

And as I've said before,if and when this happens, then we can re-examine the situation. Because your assessment ignores a host of other factors. Competition, employee well being, etc.. all act as controlling factors as to why companies provide this. Businesses don't even have to provide health insurance at all, and the ruling doesn't apply to public corporations because the administration doesn't have standing. The courts could re-examine the situation. It wouldn't even have to make it back up to the Supreme Court. I asked a couple of people now for specifics beyond this narrowly tailored rule, and basically, the answer is "there aren't any specifics, but it might, possibly, one day happen." You're going to see a handful of privately held companies follow this allowance, no different than the exemption that already exists under the health care law prior to this ruling. People like KW seem to take the idea one step further and don't even care about specific examples, it's just the principle of the thing. But what about the morning after pill makes it a principle in the first place in relation to other birth control? Because if a dozen and a half of other birth control is covered by a company like Hobby Lobby, why are some people here equating not paying for a specific type as taking away access?

Different health coverage has different deductibles and different options. If a company says "here are the dozen and a half birth control methods you can pick from, and plan b is simply one option that isn't covered, you have to pay for that out of pocket if you choose it," how is that different than the same company saying "substance abuse counseling is covered as long as you use one of the in-network psychiatrists, if you go out of network, you have to pay for the difference?" I'm seriously asking.

It seemed to me at the time that Roberts was very clearly trying to make a point that the SC wasn't political with that decision. I think he probably knew that the SC would lose a lot of respect if that case went 5-4 with the Republicans striking down the ACA. It was a legacy move, I think, siding with the liberals on the court on that one.

And it's interesting to note that the 5 justices that upheld the law didn't even agree on why they were upholding it. That right there seems to indicate that it isn't a matter of just "applying the standard of the law." Of course, if that's all it was, every decision would be unanimous; but even with 5-4 decisions, when the majority can't even agree on why the decision they're making is legal, it makes you wonder.

That's a lot more common than you'd think. There are vastly different judicial philosophies and different ways of analyzing things even among members if the sane judicial philosophy. And going beyond constitutional interpretation, statutes are often so badly drafted that the act of interpretation is subjective in itself. Then you get to whether or not it's appropriate to use congressional statements and floor records for interpretive guidance and how probative those might be if you do use them... etc etc.

In all honesty, the only reason ppl ever do agree to begin with is that opinions are usually shopped around for consensus after they're written (which occurs after the voting/polling).

The inside baseball of the court can get really, really interesting. There's a lot of politics, in the "office politics" sense.

Valid reason... well I suppose if someone was saying that this demographic shift is primarily due to illegal immigration, then there is some validity to that statement and a sufficient reason to oppose it. But I don't think the people object are connecting those two dots and if they are then the message should be different when they are talking about opposing it. Instead of saying a national version of "There goes the neighborhood" or directly opposing immigration(which we all know in America is seen as only a Mexican issue), one could say that the demographic change is illegitimate and that is enough cause to oppose the shift.

Okay, so you would be okay with someone saying, "I don't like the fact that lots of people are breaking the law and it's resulting in a much faster influx of immigrants, typically from Mexico and other Latin American countries, than would normally happen through legal immigration."

But, if someone were to say, "I like America's demographics the way it is because I genuinely prefer to live in a country with a supermajority of people of northern European descent as opposed to Latin Americans, therefore I want the country that I live in to continue to be composed predominately of this group", that would be wrong?

Not wrong, just that I wouldn't be okay with it. Its the reasoning behind the objection that makes it distasteful, not the objection in itself

Why is it distasteful to prefer for your country to retain the demographics it has had historically? Especially when it means retaining the ensuing culture and environment that comes with its demographics?

Because demographics are constantly changing, and culture along with it.